This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.

Researchers at Umeå University in Sweden have performed a study that indicates that neither blood flow nor the flow of spinal fluid in the brain contribute to the development of multiple sclerosis, MS. The findings run directly counter to a much-discussed and widely spread Italian theory.

The Umeå scientists are not alone in calling into question the findings of the Italian research team. A study run by a German research group does not either support the Italian theory that the flow of blood to and from the brain contributes to the development of MS.

The two new studies question the wide-spread hypothesis that constrictions of veins, so-called chronic cerebro-spinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), contribute to the development of MS. The studies are the first negative medical evidence regarding this hypothesis.

Previously an Italian research group has shown in a series of publications that deviations in the venous outflow (backward flow, reduced flow, altered flow) always occur in individuals with MS, but never in those who do not have MS.

The findings have had a tremendous impact on the international media. The Swedish media have also taken up the subject. There are also many Web sites and Internet discussion groups on the theme.

The Italian research team has also published a study where a group of patients with MS underwent vascular surgery with the aim of improving their venous outflow. Two fatalities following such operations have attracted much publicity, as there are no randomized controlled studies of the procedure and the underlying theory has not been scrutinized by other research groups.

"The Italian theory is hard to accept for many reasons. For instance, there are no reports of increased incidence of MS in patients with conditions that impair venous outflow, such as following tumor operations in the throat. For many years, before the advent of magnetic camera technology, MS patients were also often examined using cerebral angiography, so-called skull coloring, a technique that should uncover these kinds of changes," says Peter Sundström, chief physician at the Neurology Clinic, Norrlands universitetssjukhus (University Hospital of Umeå).

The journal Annals of Neurology published the Swedish and German studies that have both studied the new Italian theory on 2 August. Neither study presents results that support the Italian findings.

The German research team studied venous blood flow from the brain using ultrasound – the same method used by the Italian research group. The study showed no reduced blood flow in MS cases compared with healthy controls.

The Umeå University study is a collaboration between the Department of Clinical Neuroscience and the Department of Radiation Sciences. The researchers used a magnetic camera (phase contrast MRI, PC-MRI) to meter the flow of blood from the brain. PC-MRI is regarded as a reliable way to measure the flow in blood vessels, for instance. The study focused on the flow in the internal jugular vein, vena jugularis interna. The flow of spinal fluid in the brain – which the Italian research group also maintains is lower in individuals with MS – was also studied.

In the study no differences were registered between people with MS and healthy control individuals regarding blood flow to the brain or blood flow from the brain via the internal jugular vein, or the flow of spinal fluid in the brain. The study cannot confirm the new Italian theory, and the findings do not support the assumption that operations that improve venous outflow from the brain can be used as treatment for MS.

How does it advance the science of this if you don't actually attempt to replicate the work of Dr. Zamboni?

I personally tested the CCSVI theory using tarot cards and was "not able to reproduce the findings by Zamboni et al. " I should submit my results to the growing evidence that CCSVI is not real at least when you don't actually test for it.

Tarot has been shown to be unfocussed and inaccurate compared to the more professional parapsychological methods such as Ouija. Never or nonetheless, it fully agrees with this finding.

Zamboni has said on many occasions that researchers, especially those at financial or mental risk, should continue taking their medication.

"Time is brain, and, as we all know, also money, so the conclusion might be reached that brain is money, but we're still not sure." said Dr. Gamblumer of the Hospital for Sick Billionaires, where he is Chief of Neuro-Phrenology.

I've seen 3 other articles - in the Wall Street Journal, LA Times & NY Times - it was my understanding they used MRIs of jugulars only. This does not replicate Zamboni's testing methods.

Unless we see an article that states specifally they replicated Zamboni's testing methods using the specialized equipment he developed, the results of the study are questionable.

Since this is around the 4th thread on this topic - I'd really like to get Dr S's opinion? He's already been asked twice but has made no comment. Maybe when he returns to the forum, it could be revisited with him?

LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Globe and Mail: what's next, the Rolling Stone? Time Magazine? London Times? How far can we push a lie? Reminds me of... nothing comes to mind. This is undoubtedly the biggest scam I have personally ever seen. The bigger the lie...

Jugular wrote:They use the wrong test and then cite rumour and gossip to support their findings? How hard is it to get a medical degree in Sweden?

Sweden actually has a very good reputation for medical treatments. I'd go there in a heartbeat for any treatment. This is why this study is disturbing. It doesn't mean every study in Sweden is credible. It depends on their testing methods - did they replicate Zamboni's methods exactly as scientific method requires?

It needs to be peer reviewed. But in any case there's no doubt this was a small study with only 20 people in each group. To me it's important to get doctors' opinions not biased opinions from people who don't know how to interpret findings either way.

But it's ridiculous to think you're going to discredit this study because it's Swedish or by being silly. Sweden has a good reputation. What will discredit the Swedish study (and the German one) is the science they used and the testing protocols.

When doctors (peers) point out the reasons this study is/isn't valid, the public has something credible to go on.

Is it just me or do other people see that if you go thru these threads it is almost always a "newbie" that has posted a study like this or other info (like Germany Studies). Don't get me wrong I am all for a good debate, but please stop throwing out these crap articles. And hopefully the rest of us have stopped paying attention to them.

Who is online

This site does not offer, or claim to offer, medical, legal, or professional advice.
All treatment decisions should always be made with the full knowledge of your physicians.
This is MS does not create, endorse, or republish any content.
All postings are the responsibility of the poster. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. All users must respect our rules for intellectual property rights.